The court upheld the statutory requirement for the payment of assessed amounts and interest as per the Electricity Act, rejecting claims of improper assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant, who is a High Tension Consumer of electricity with Consumer No.LCN 4/4212 under the Electrical Section, Cherai of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB), which is engaged in running a resort with a sanctioned contract load of 70KVA and connected load of 136KW, filed W.P.(C)No.4107 of 2019 before this Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 site mahazar dated 23.05.2018 prepared by the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Cherai, Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, North Paravur, Ext.P4 invoice dated 29.09.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer and Ext.P8 order dated 15.01.2019 of the 5^th respondent Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority and all other proceedings pursuant thereto; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to refund the amounts collected from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2018 and Ext.P4 invoice dated 29.09.2018.

2. The issue raised in the writ petition centers around an inspection conducted on 23.05.2018, in the premises of the appellant-petitioner, by the Anti Power Theft Squad. Based on Ext.P1 site mahazar, the petitioner was issued with a short assessment bill (provisional demand) for Rs.36,55,527/-, on the allegation that an additional connected load of 200.006 KW was installed in the premises at the time of inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 23.05.2018. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objections dated 07.05.2018. After considering the said objections the 2^nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer issued Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2018 and Ext.P4 invoice dated 29.09.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.36,55,527/-. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the 5^th respondent Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority, invoking the provisions under Section 127 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003. The petitioner deposited 50% of the total demand, i.e., Rs.18,27,763/-, at the time of submitting Ext.P7 appeal. The Appellate Authority passed Ext.P8 order, declining interference on the assessment made by the original authority. Based on Ext.P8 order, the 2^nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer issued Ext.P9 notice dated 31.01.2019, whereby the petitioner was required to remit the balance amount of Rs.18,27,764/- on or before 15.02.2019.

3. After considering the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 31.01.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)No. 4107 of 2019, along with another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No. 2041 of 2019 filed by another consumer. Paragraphs 5 to 9 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 31.01.2025 read thus;

“5. The main contention taken by the petitioner is with reference to the energization approval granted by the Electrical Inspector for 573.335KW as seen from Ext.P5. In the light of the afore, it is contended that no additional charges are payable, since the connected load was admittedly 136 KW. Reliance is also placed in the judgment of this Court in Sulabha Marketing(P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Tvm and Others [ 2017 (3) KHC 563 ] to contend that the additional charges are liable to be set aside.

6. In the case at hand, the additional demand is raised pursuant to the inspection of the premises as noticed above. The question arising for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can take shelter under Ext.P5 since, with reference to Ext.P5 the sanctioned load was 573.335 KW.

7. The